I am bad at remembering all this starship class stuff, and so I was wondering, can someone please give me a breakdown of the different starship classes in the 23rd and 24th century Trek shows (all shows except Enterprise)? Like how this ship fares up against enemy ships and when the class was started and all that? Thank you in advance.
Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship classes?
- Thread starter cdgodin
- Start date
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
You should probably check some place like Memory Alpha for stuff like that, as they have more detailed information in one spot.
You should probably check some place like Memory Alpha for stuff like that, as they have more detailed information in one spot.
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
A by no means definite list.
23rd Centuty
Constitution Class
Constitution Mk II Class
Oberth Class
Excelsior Class
Miranda Class
24th Century
Galaxy Class
Ambassador Class
Akira Class
Soverign Class
Defiant Class
Prometheus Class
Streamrunner Class
Nebula Class
Intrepid Class
Sabre Class
Danube Class
Then there are the kitbashes
A by no means definite list.
23rd Centuty
Constitution Class
Constitution Mk II Class
Oberth Class
Excelsior Class
Miranda Class
24th Century
Galaxy Class
Ambassador Class
Akira Class
Soverign Class
Defiant Class
Prometheus Class
Streamrunner Class
Nebula Class
Intrepid Class
Sabre Class
Danube Class
Then there are the kitbashes
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
You also have to remember that the capabilities of all the ships in question were at the whim and mercy of the writers and directors of that week. Two cases in point - The Borg & The Dominion (specifically the Jem'Hadar). Both adversaries gave the Federation a blood-letting they will never forget at first meeting. While later on, both had ships that no longer seemed to pack the punch that they did in the beginning.
IIRC, Jem'Hadar shields couldn't be easily penetrated by phasers (I somehow remember this being the case at one point). They were throwing their bug ships at a Galaxy-class ship like they were totally disposable, wiping it out in minutes. Then, later on, during the various series-end battles of the Dominion War, they were being cut up by legacy Klingon Birds of Prey like butter. And what ever happened to the Vorta's curious mental telepathy force burst? It was only ever shown once by Eris (sp?) and never seen again by the army of Weyoun's. The shows are full of these inconsistencies and the ship capabilities are especially susceptible to continuity drift.
The "unstoppable force of nature" that Q introduced to the Federation in the form of the Borg was reduced to a gaggle of feckless Cylon/Stormtrooper wanna-be's by the time Voyager and Future-Janeway got through with them.
The reasoning is obvious and totally the fault of the story - ramp up the artificial tension and threat and overcome all odds without much explanation as to why our heroes succeeded other than the fact than they were our heroes. DS9 did a reasonably better job of it, I think, than Voyager did, but that's a topic for another thread.
You can probably find some semi-reliable information about these ships online (dimensions, mass, crew compositions, etc.), but comparing them at a tactical level, I'm thinking, would be folly due to their internal inconsistencies.
Another thing you need to remember - class designations like "Heavy Cruiser", "Frigate", etc., were never widely used in the canonical Trek universe, if really at all. In fact, I don't think the word "Frigate" ever entered a single line of dialog in any of the series and movies, yet it is an accepted class designation - to the fandom at-large - to describe ships of the Reliant's design (larger primary hull, no secondary hull, under-slung warp engines) - a design which some have also referred to as "Light Cruiser" as well. Naming classification types such as these were more an affectation by the fandom (likely starting with Franz Joseph) to categorize the growing stable of ship designs, consistent with current customs, usages and naming conventions of modern-day naval craft. Shit, we didn't get a class-name for the Reliant (Miranda) or Grissom (Oberth) until we were well within Next Generation's run due to the reuse of the studio models as guest ship appearances - and there are STILL ongoing and colorful discussions of whether the refit Enterprise is "Constitution Class", "Enterprise Class", "Constitution II Class" or simply "Starship Class". It's fun to speculate, but I wouldn't loose too much sleep over finding a solid answer.
You also have to remember that the capabilities of all the ships in question were at the whim and mercy of the writers and directors of that week. Two cases in point - The Borg & The Dominion (specifically the Jem'Hadar). Both adversaries gave the Federation a blood-letting they will never forget at first meeting. While later on, both had ships that no longer seemed to pack the punch that they did in the beginning.
IIRC, Jem'Hadar shields couldn't be easily penetrated by phasers (I somehow remember this being the case at one point). They were throwing their bug ships at a Galaxy-class ship like they were totally disposable, wiping it out in minutes. Then, later on, during the various series-end battles of the Dominion War, they were being cut up by legacy Klingon Birds of Prey like butter. And what ever happened to the Vorta's curious mental telepathy force burst? It was only ever shown once by Eris (sp?) and never seen again by the army of Weyoun's. The shows are full of these inconsistencies and the ship capabilities are especially susceptible to continuity drift.
The "unstoppable force of nature" that Q introduced to the Federation in the form of the Borg was reduced to a gaggle of feckless Cylon/Stormtrooper wanna-be's by the time Voyager and Future-Janeway got through with them.
The reasoning is obvious and totally the fault of the story - ramp up the artificial tension and threat and overcome all odds without much explanation as to why our heroes succeeded other than the fact than they were our heroes. DS9 did a reasonably better job of it, I think, than Voyager did, but that's a topic for another thread.
You can probably find some semi-reliable information about these ships online (dimensions, mass, crew compositions, etc.), but comparing them at a tactical level, I'm thinking, would be folly due to their internal inconsistencies.
Another thing you need to remember - class designations like "Heavy Cruiser", "Frigate", etc., were never widely used in the canonical Trek universe, if really at all. In fact, I don't think the word "Frigate" ever entered a single line of dialog in any of the series and movies, yet it is an accepted class designation - to the fandom at-large - to describe ships of the Reliant's design (larger primary hull, no secondary hull, under-slung warp engines) - a design which some have also referred to as "Light Cruiser" as well. Naming classification types such as these were more an affectation by the fandom (likely starting with Franz Joseph) to categorize the growing stable of ship designs, consistent with current customs, usages and naming conventions of modern-day naval craft. Shit, we didn't get a class-name for the Reliant (Miranda) or Grissom (Oberth) until we were well within Next Generation's run due to the reuse of the studio models as guest ship appearances - and there are STILL ongoing and colorful discussions of whether the refit Enterprise is "Constitution Class", "Enterprise Class", "Constitution II Class" or simply "Starship Class". It's fun to speculate, but I wouldn't loose too much sleep over finding a solid answer.
Last edited:
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
The instances I know of in TNG of naval designations used in dialog are: The U.S.S. Drake was referred to as a light cruiser, the Renegade and Thomas Paine were referred to as frigates, and the Tripoli was referred to as a cruiser. However, all these instances were from the first season of TNG, and were subsequently dropped after that.
The instances I know of in TNG of naval designations used in dialog are: The U.S.S. Drake was referred to as a light cruiser, the Renegade and Thomas Paine were referred to as frigates, and the Tripoli was referred to as a cruiser. However, all these instances were from the first season of TNG, and were subsequently dropped after that.
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
^^^ Gotcha. That was a ways back, then - I guess I didn't remember that.
It looks like there may have been a fledgling effort to classify these things early on, but that attention to minutiae likely gave way to greater concerns.
^^^ Gotcha. That was a ways back, then - I guess I didn't remember that.
It looks like there may have been a fledgling effort to classify these things early on, but that attention to minutiae likely gave way to greater concerns.
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
One has to remember that during TNG's first season, FASA still had its license to produce Trek RPGs, sourcebooks, etc., and that's probably why the naval designations were more frequent. Some FASA designs can even be seen on the occasional display during season 1. Once FASA lost its license and the TNG producers pooh-poohed any previous non-official Trek books and merchandise, that's when the trend veered away from such terms as cruiser, dreadnought, frigate, etc. (and the fact that Roddenberry didn't want Starfleet to be military).
One has to remember that during TNG's first season, FASA still had its license to produce Trek RPGs, sourcebooks, etc., and that's probably why the naval designations were more frequent. Some FASA designs can even be seen on the occasional display during season 1. Once FASA lost its license and the TNG producers pooh-poohed any previous non-official Trek books and merchandise, that's when the trend veered away from such terms as cruiser, dreadnought, frigate, etc. (and the fact that Roddenberry didn't want Starfleet to be military).
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
I think it was a case that he just wanted more neutral-sounding ship designations that could be used both in times of peace and war. I believe most ships fell under the designation of cruisers (of various sizes) though.
Which is why he gave Starfleet the ability to act as a military when a story required it to with ships capable of blasting half a planet's continent from orbit.
I think it was a case that he just wanted more neutral-sounding ship designations that could be used both in times of peace and war. I believe most ships fell under the designation of cruisers (of various sizes) though.
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
DS9 largely shirked away from using "cruiser" but did mention "destroyers" and "escorts", in addition to throwing around titles like "runabout", "courier", "attack fighter", "interceptor" etc. So yes, the "naval" or "military" designations may have gone on a hiatus, but they did return with a vengeance later on.
I guess after the first season, TNG sort of scaled down on so many fronts: it "found its feet" and never flew again. Expensive things were preemptively written out of the stories, rather than cleverly mentioned but left unseen, and that to a large part included fellow starships and formations - it took a two-parter's budget and time resources to throw together a fleet from stock footage., and a season-ender's resources to insert new material. Even when they could easily have done "Conspiracy" at least twice per season and given us three starships without showing a single one...
Timo Saloniemi
DS9 largely shirked away from using "cruiser" but did mention "destroyers" and "escorts", in addition to throwing around titles like "runabout", "courier", "attack fighter", "interceptor" etc. So yes, the "naval" or "military" designations may have gone on a hiatus, but they did return with a vengeance later on.
I guess after the first season, TNG sort of scaled down on so many fronts: it "found its feet" and never flew again. Expensive things were preemptively written out of the stories, rather than cleverly mentioned but left unseen, and that to a large part included fellow starships and formations - it took a two-parter's budget and time resources to throw together a fleet from stock footage., and a season-ender's resources to insert new material. Even when they could easily have done "Conspiracy" at least twice per season and given us three starships without showing a single one...
Timo Saloniemi
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
I believe quite a few ships in DS9 (like the Miranda-class) were cruisers, although I think the terms "battle cruiser" and "attack cruiser" were given more to alien vessels.
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
In the DS9 Tech Manual, everybody and his midget cousin was a cruiser of some sort. Not so much in actual dialogue, though. Federation starships were generally only mentioned by name, and it was quite a chore to try and associate a name with an onscreen ship (typically, use of stock footage meant there was no true association there).
AFAIK, the word "cruiser" was never used for a specific Starfleet vessel in DS9 (and was only used twice in any role, namely in "Sacrifice of Angels" in the context of "cruiser wings" of unknown and unseen ship types); consistently used for Klingon vessels; inconsistently used on Cardassian ones ("Way of the Warrior" identified Galor as a cruiser, but "Sacrifice of Angels" as a destroyer); and slapped on random unseen alien ships once or twice. Plus, Kasidy's freighter had the dedication plaque saying "Antares class cruiser", but we were never told where she stole that one from.
Timo Saloniemi
In the DS9 Tech Manual, everybody and his midget cousin was a cruiser of some sort. Not so much in actual dialogue, though. Federation starships were generally only mentioned by name, and it was quite a chore to try and associate a name with an onscreen ship (typically, use of stock footage meant there was no true association there).
AFAIK, the word "cruiser" was never used for a specific Starfleet vessel in DS9 (and was only used twice in any role, namely in "Sacrifice of Angels" in the context of "cruiser wings" of unknown and unseen ship types); consistently used for Klingon vessels; inconsistently used on Cardassian ones ("Way of the Warrior" identified Galor as a cruiser, but "Sacrifice of Angels" as a destroyer); and slapped on random unseen alien ships once or twice. Plus, Kasidy's freighter had the dedication plaque saying "Antares class cruiser", but we were never told where she stole that one from.
Timo Saloniemi
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
I believe the term "cruiser" is the generic term used for most Starfleet vessels, even if not mentioned onscreen. It's kind of a default designation for ships designed for a variety of missions, IMO, with specific designations reserved for ships with more of a singular mission.
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
Why are you under the impression that she "stole" it from anywhere? The obvious intent is that the plaque was representative of that ship, whether it's alien, Federation, or even an old decommissioned 23rd century Starfleet vessel re-purposed as a freighter.
Why are you under the impression that she "stole" it from anywhere? The obvious intent is that the plaque was representative of that ship, whether it's alien, Federation, or even an old decommissioned 23rd century Starfleet vessel re-purposed as a freighter.
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
That's not what I said. I said it could have been an old 23rd century Starfleet cruiser that had been refitted to carry freight. How do you know that early TOS Starfleet didn't consider this design a cruiser?
That's not what I said. I said it could have been an old 23rd century Starfleet cruiser that had been refitted to carry freight. How do you know that early TOS Starfleet didn't consider this design a cruiser?
The interior of the Xhosa was purposely built to look like a TOS-era ship. The TOS-era dedication plaque fits perfectly with this motif. That's far more logical to me than thinking that Yates just randomly stole some other ship's plaque to hang in her bridge, when if she wanted a plaque so bad she could have just replicated one.
Last edited:
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
And we do know what TOS era cruisers look like, so that one is right out already.
The point of stealing signage is twofold, the humorously appropriate content in them being the one half. The other, more important half is of course the act of stealing...
Timo Saloniemi
And we do know what TOS era cruisers look like, so that one is right out already.
The point of stealing signage is twofold, the humorously appropriate content in them being the one half. The other, more important half is of course the act of stealing...
Timo Saloniemi
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
Not quite sure what you're saying here. If you're implying that the Constitution class was a cruiser, and that the interior of the Xhosa was meant to look like a TOS ship, then that would in fact support my argument. Unless you're of the opinion that every single aspect of a ship's bridge must look exactly the same as a Connie bridge in order for it to be classified as a cruiser.
Not quite sure what you're saying here. If you're implying that the Constitution class was a cruiser, and that the interior of the Xhosa was meant to look like a TOS ship, then that would in fact support my argument. Unless you're of the opinion that every single aspect of a ship's bridge must look exactly the same as a Connie bridge in order for it to be classified as a cruiser.
You're of course welcome to hold the opinion that Yates stole her plaque. But because there's absolutely no evidence to support that theory, I will go with the more logical theory that the plaque was always meant to be for the Xhosa.
Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas
^^^ The Klingons referred to it as a Federation battle cruiser. I don't recall any other nomenclature being used.
^^^ The Klingons referred to it as a Federation battle cruiser. I don't recall any other nomenclature being used.
